LITTLE ROCK — Longtime supporters of Central Arkansas Water’s efforts to prevent pollution in the Lake Maumelle watershed told water commissioners Thursday that they are not satisfied with the latest efforts by Pulaski County to help meet that goal.
Commissioners have scheduled a 4 p.m. meeting Nov. 21 to vote on whether they will support Pulaski County’s proposed land-use regulations, which would regulate the size of subdivisions and ban landfills and other potentially harmful developments from areas in the county that drain into Lake Maumelle, the region’s main source of drinking water. The county has no reason to go forward if the utility, which paid for the draft and would pay for the county employees to enforce it, doesn’t support it.
Commissioners discussed the county’s zoning regulations in more detail Thursday but held off on taking a stance, the second time they’ve done so since the final draft was released in early October.
“These are highly technical issues. They’re technical issues and they’re policy issues,” said Graham Rich, the utility’s executive director, who has not yet made a recommendation of his own. “I want to have the most information I can have before I make a recommendation.”
Several Little Rock residents who have participated in the utility’s Lake Maumelle watershed plans during the past decade said the proposal before Pulaski County significantly deviates from the utility’s management plan adopted in 2007. The utility has no regulatory authority over development in the watershed and has to rely on the county passing regulations called for in the 2007 watershed management plan.
Nearly 36,000 houses could be built under the county’s plan, five times the number that the utility’s watershed management plan originally anticipated, said Barry Haas, a member of Citizens Protecting Maumelle Watershed.
“We’re talking sewer mains and city-sized subdivisions,” said Kathy Wells, president of the Coalition of Greater Little Rock Neighborhoods.
The utility’s plan anticipated septic tanks and small developments, she said, but since then it seems as if the utility and county prefer to pump waste out of the watershed. That encourages larger subdivisions, Wells said.
Kate Althoff, also a member of the watershed group, said she was concerned that the proposed regulations categorize land that’s been harvested for timber as open space - even before trees grow back. The county’s plan would require developers in certain areas of the watershed to set aside undeveloped property to reduce pollution from water runoff.
Affected property owners in Pulaski County aren’t happy either. Some see the plan as the county taking or devaluing their property. Other residents find the technical language very difficult to understand or are dismayed that the language refers to them as “developers,” and doesn’t distinguish them from subdivision developers.
“This plan does not accomplish what you want to do without burdening the landowners,” said Kent Walker, an attorney representing property owners in the watershed.
For example, a 500-square foot addition or building a barn would require a permit and a site plan, costing property owners a lot of money, Walker said. The plan is “onerous and puts too many burdens on the landowners,”he said.
Several water commissioners said they didn’t like how the county’s regulations would require permits and site plans for small additions or properties not being subdivided for a housing development.
Commissioners wantedmore time to understand some of the smaller details and to see whether the county would consider making minor changes or clarifications.
“We want to make sure we’re not supporting something that’s unreasonable,” said Chairman Tom Rimmer.
The regulations would also, for the first time in Pulaski County’s history, tell developers how many houses they can develop per acre in the Lake Maumelle watershed, and require some developers to set aside undeveloped land to offset any potential pollution from storm water runoff. The county’s plan would also ban certain types of development, such as landfills, from the watershed.
The 88,000-acre watershed stretches into Perry and Saline counties as well, but Perry County’s Quorum Court has refused to enact any regulations, and Saline County’s government has yet to discuss the issue.
Along with their “confidence vote” on Nov. 21, water commissioners will also consider adopting a resolution that reaffirms the utility’s policy of buying land in the watershed to help offset potential pollution caused by small property owners who develop their land. The utility has purchased about 2,400 acres in the watershed and will be drafting a policy in the next few weeks on how that land is to be managed.
Arkansas, Pages 11 on 11/11/2011